IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Murder – Merely being an interested witness cannot be a ground for discarding his testimony – However, evidence of such a witness is required to be scrutinized with greater caution and circumspection.
(2) Enmity is a double-edged weapon – On one hand, it provides motive, on other hand it also does not rule out possibility of false implication.

JUDGMENT :

(B.R. Gavai, J.)

1. Leave Granted.

2. The present appeal challenges the final judgment and order dated 26th September 2024, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur¹[Hereinafter referred to as “the High Court”] in Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 1996 filed by the Appellant herein whereby the High Court dismissed the Criminal Appeal and upheld the order of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur (M.P.)²[Hereinafter referred to as “the trial court”.] passed in Sessions Trial No. 1023 of 1994 thereby convicting the accused-appellant under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860³[Hereinafter referred to as “IPC”] and sentencing him to life imprisonment.

3. Shorn of details, the facts leading to the present appeal are as under:

3.1. On 22nd August 1994, at noon, the information about an attack on the deceased Zahid Khan alias Guddu was given to Omti Police Station and thereafter a Dehati was written by Sub-Inspector A.K Bajpai (PW-12) at 01:30 PM.

3.2. FIR No. 461/1994 was registered at Omti P.S on the same date narrating the attack on the deceased as per the information shared by Shahid Khan (PW-1) - the brother of the deceased. The prosecution case is as follows:

On 22nd August 1994, at around 12.30 PM an abusive quarrel broke out on the road between the accused-appellant Aslam alias Imran and the deceased at an area “Naya Mohalla”. The accused thereafter attacked the deceased with a butcher knife (baka) causing multiple injuries on his hands and thighs, and a deep wound on his neck leading to the deceased bleeding profusely. The accused fled away from the scene, and the injured deceased was taken by Shahid Khan (PW-1) and others to Victoria Hospital where upon seeing his critical condition, he was shifted to the Medical College.

3.3. The accused succumbed to the injuries on the same day at around 02:10 PM. The Lash Panchnama was written on the same day by Sub–Inspector Vajpayee (PW-11) and signed by Shahid Khan (PW-1) and others. The investigation began, blood on the soil at the spot of crime was seized and the body was sent for medical examination.

3.4. The accused was arrested on 25th August 1994. Based on the disclosure made by the accused, the blood-stained butcher knife (baka) was discovered from a container at the residence of the accused.

3.5. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. Since the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, it was committed to the Sessions Court.

3.6. Vide judgment and order dated 21st November 1995, the trial court convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 302 of IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

3.7. Vide the impugned judgment and order, the High Court upheld the judgment and order of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302 of IPC, and directed the appellant who was out on bail to surrender before the trial court to undergo the remaining part of his jail sentence.

3.8. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal.

4. We have heard Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Ms. Mrinal Gopal Elker, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

5. Mr. Hegde, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the perusal of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses would reveal that the said witnesses are not trustworthy and their testimonies are inconsistent to each other. As such, the conviction on the basis of such testimonies would not be sustainable in law.

6. In the alternative, Mr. Hegde submits that even if the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is taken at its face value, it would clearly reveal that there was a quarrel between the appellant and the deceased. It is the deceased who was having a knife. As a result of the quarrel, the appellant picked up the knife of the deceased and assaulted him. He therefore submits that it